IN THEIR EUPHORIA over the establishment of an international war crimes
court, and their chastisement of the United States for voting against it,
the country’s major metropolitan media have failed to report one small
detail: Egypt’s price for supporting the measure was that the Israeli
settlements on the West Bank be branded as a war crime.

The nations defining this new beacon of international justice agreed to it.
The court won approval by an overwhelming 120 to 7.

Among the most vocal supporters of the court was UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan, who convened the five-week conference in Rome.

According to the New York Times, at the start of the conference Annan warned
"that the eyes of past and future victims ‘are fixed upon us.’" He "urged
establishment of a global war crimes court as a ‘bulwark against evil,’" and
added, "I trust you will not flinch from creating a court strong and
independent enough to carry out its task."

Is this righteous advocate the same Kofi Annan who in 1994 denied a U.N.
general in Rwanda authorization to raid the government’s weapons stockpiles
three months before the same government massacred its people? The same one
who instructed this general to turn information about the genocide plan,
which had been provided by a confidential witness, over to the government
planning the genocide?

Apparently, Annan really wanted this court. He helped produce fodder for it.
The genocide took place without a hitch, and no one’s heard from the secret
government informant or his family since.

Annan is lucky the court isn’t retroactive. So is France, which was among
the first countries to eagerly sign on. Otherwise, both would have to be
tried for complicity to genocide—a crime they’re pushing to try others for.

With the notable exception of The New Yorker magazine, the major media didn’
t report the Annan situation, either. Of course not. Why would they? If they
played up the U.N. Secretary General’s sins, he might deprive them of his
charming personage at all those book and dinner parties they so like
inviting him to.

Given the Israeli settlement clause which supporting nations used to bribe
one vote out of Egypt—and the deadly hypocrite who is the force behind the
world court—I’d have expected to see thousands of Jewish and black
picketers this week in front of the U.N. building here. Yet all is quiet.

That’s because no one knows anything about it. And that’s because no one is
reporting it.

To the media, the Israeli settlements have always been a crime. But is the
media honestly OK with it being considered an atrocity on par with the worst
crimes against humanity? Probably not. They just want their court. Sweep the
details under the rug.

What a sad state of affairs it is when the only mention of Egypt’s heinous
proposal appears in the editorial pages of the otherwise Oslo-Accords-happy
Baltimore Sun and Washington Post.

The main reasoning for the U.S. vote against the tribunal involves fears of
arbitrary and politically motivated prosecutions. The Israel clause proves
their fears correct: it hasn’t even been brought to life yet, but from the
outset this world court is suspect—the pet project of guilt-ridden parties.

I do, however, commend Mr. Annan on his choice to convene the conference in
Rome. He put the saying to the test: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
And they all did.

At least the proponents of the court are right about one thing: The
establishment of such a court is a poignant measure of how far we’ve come
since 1945: Not
very.